An example of how quickly things could turn around.....

[RashanGary]

Why are Thomas jones, Michael Turner and Nate Clements not being resigned by their current teams?

The Bears have soem tough choices. They can't keep everybody because their roster is so loaded adn a bunch of them are headign for big paydays.

They have Benson who is a good RB. They might see Jones as being more expendable than Lance Briggs. I don't know though. We'll see.

I think it would be smart of us to at least pressure the Bears by offering him a nice fair contract and make them pay for his services if they want him. I think we could pry him from the soon to be cap strapped Chicago team.

[BF4MVP]

Draft Calvin Johnson the next great WR aka the next head case. The future T.O

It's obvious you don't know anything about Calvin at all.

[wist43]

Nice scenario GJ... but, it won't happen.

I'm becoming convinced that TT is in over his head... he simply doesn't have the vision to build a winner. I'm not calling for his head yet, but I'm very skeptical he, or M3, will be able build a winner.

Team chemistry, special teams, OL play, hiring Schottenheimer back, signing Koren Robinson out of desperation, letting Wahle and Walker go, etc, etc, etc...

What he's done so far isn't pretty.

[BEARMAN]

Hey, what are they putting in that KoolAid ya all are drinking ?
You packerrats will stay right where you belong, in the gutter for along time to come !
Keep repeeting to yourselves, next year, next year, next year... Next year never comes boys ! LMFAO !
Silly packers, the NFCN belongs to DA BEARS !


GO BEARS !

[RashanGary]

Wist,

We'll see. I agree it sure doesn't look good so far. The Packers really are starting over though. It happens in the NFL.

He stripped the team down with no regard for how far we'd fall. He's going to stick with his plan even though it hurts really bad right now.

I don't know that what happened last season and what is happening now are direct indicators of what will happen tomorrow.

We're building from the ground up. I guess that excites me more that what we were doing the last 3 or 4 years of borderline competitiveness.

[jack's smirking revenge]

We're building from the ground up. I guess that excites me more that what we were doing the last 3 or 4 years of borderline competitiveness.

Agreed.

tyler

[MJZiggy]

Bearman, not the troll I was hoping to see, but your timing is good even if nothing else is. The above statement by GJ has me wondering exactly what the Bears salary cap looks like for the upcoming year. Where will you be in relation to the cap when it's time to start locking players up to their bigger contracts?

[Scott Campbell]

We're building from the ground up. I guess that excites me more that what we were doing the last 3 or 4 years of borderline competitiveness.

I agree with you, but it comes with some risk. They're nurturing a culture of losing for the time being, and that can sometimes be difficult to shake.

[RashanGary]

no offense, but do you actually know what you are talking about in this stuff? There are a slew of inaccuracies within this thread.

FACT - The Packers had no more money to spend in the 95-96 season than anybody else. *It's called a salary cap*

FACT - The Packers got more production out of their roster than any other NFL team. *Superbowl W*

With those two facts in mind, one could reasonably deduct that the Packers got more production than what they actually paid for in relation to what other teams were getting with their money. The logic used to deduct this conclusion would not assume that all teams who spend all their money should have equal talent. Clearly each dollar spent is not equal to a dollar of production accross the board. The fact the Packers roster was IMO clearly better than any other roster that year shows that the Packers were actually paying the same amount of money as other teams *salary cap* but getting more production. It could be reasonably deducted that the Packers really got good value for the money that they spent in that season. Value and thrifty ring up in my head as similar economic concepts. Maybe you, partial can explain to me how you think the NFL salary cap effects talent and more importantly wins. I'm on the edge of my seat waiting for your brilliant response.

The thing about being thrifty, as you guys say, is that it isn't a quick fix. You don't draft 52 good players in one off season. you don't find 15 value FA pick ups in one off season. The Packers had adopted a process of actually using more money than they had the few years leading up to Thompson’s reign. Essentially they were buying time. Instead of simply using what they had that year, they creatively borrowed for future years bringing on what eventually became a real salary cap problem. This was a big part as I look back as to why the Packers eventually had to start over because they could no longer borrow from the future and Harlan could no longer justify keeping Sherman who planned on doing that exact tactic until none was left. Also, 4 or 5 years of bad drafts contributed over time to the NFLE depth that were starting to experience. There wasn’t' one capable backup OG. Not one OT. Unless you consider Pooper a capable RB, there wasn't one of those either. Safety’s's? CB's? LB's? DE's? DT's? QB's? WR's? The depth was stripped. We didn't have one back up player capable of starting on another team. Again, I'm on the edge of my seat waiting for the easy solution for this problem. I'm of the belief that any instantaneous quick fixes would have bought some time and filled a hole for now but that the team was sliding and was not going to win any meaningful games no matter what happened. Please, brilliant Partial, explain to me how you would have fixed these problems in one or two off seasons. Explain to me how this team had any reasonable chance at a SB run *what is the goal, you may have forgotten that*.

It was time to start over. It was time to stop borrowing from future years. In fact, it was becoming increasingly hard to borrow because like good choices that build up to a climax, bad choices descend to a disgusting valley. Thompson wasted no time tearing it down and starting over. Instead of going with the quick fix that would buy time today, he's taking a path that he believe will get him to the SB one day. You may not agree with it, you may not understand how this concept "thrifty" applies to the NFL but don’t' throw some stupid one liner at me and pretend like you know what you’re talking about .

Fact is, you don't and you'll probably respond accordingly. Let's here your solutions wise ass. Let's hear what the brilliant Partial would have done because obviously we were just a couple pieces away and should be competitive right now.

Firing Sherman the GM was the best move Harlan ever made, but it wasn't enough to make up for the worst move he ever made, hiring him. 5 years of bad drafts will ruin any team and that is where we were. Sherman did a good job buying time but it was a matter of time before it crumbled. Deal with it. If anything, we should all be planning a scheme to burn Sherman’s house and torture his wife and children because the real villain can be summed up with one picture. Mike Sherman sleeping at the combine.

[Partial]

no offense, but do you actually know what you are talking about in this stuff? There are a slew of inaccuracies within this thread.

FACT - The Packers had no more money to spend in the 95-96 season than anybody else. *It's called a salary cap*

FACT - The Packers got more production out of their roster than any other NFL team. *Superbowl W*

With those two facts in mind, one could reasonably deduct that the Packers got more production than what they actually paid for in relation to what other teams were getting with their money. The logic used to deduct this conclusion would not assume that all teams who spend all their money should have equal talent assuming each dollar spent was equal to a dollar of production. The fact the Packers roster was IMO clearly better than any other roster that year shows that the Packers were actually paying the same amount of money as other teams *salary cap* but getting more production. It could be reasonably deducted that the Packers really got good value for the money that they spent in that season. Value and thrifty ring up in my head as similar economic concepts. Maybe you, partial can explain to me how you think the NFL salary cap effects talent and more importantly wins. I'm on the edge of my seat waiting for your brilliant response.

The thing about being thrifty as you guys say is that it isn't a quick fix. You don't draft 52 good players in one off season. you don't find 15 value FA pick ups in one off season. The Packers had adopted a process of actually using more money than they had the few years leading up to Thompson’s reign. Essentially they were buying time. Instead of simply using what they had that year, they creatively borrowed for future years bringing on what eventually became a real salary cap problem. This was a big part as I look back as to why the Packers eventually had to start over because they could no longer borrow from the future and Harlan could no longer justify keeping Sherman who planned on doing that exact tactic until none was left. Also, 4 or 5 years of bad drafts contributed over time to the NFLE depth that were starting to experience. There wasn’t' one capable backup OG. Not one OT. Unless you consider Pooper a capable RB, there wasn't one of those either. Safety’s's? CB's? LB's? DE's? DT's? QB's? WR's? The depth was stripped. We didn't have one back up player capable of starting on another team. Again, I'm on the edge of my seat waiting for the easy solution for this problem. I'm of the belief that any instantaneous quick fixes would have bought some time and filled a hole for now but that the team was sliding and was not going to win any meaningful games no matter what happened. Please, brilliant Partial, explain to me how you would have fixed these problems in one or two off seasons. Explain to me how this team had any reasonable chance at a SB run *what is the goal, you may have forgotten that*.

It was time to start over. It was time to stop borrowing from future years. In fact, it was becoming increasingly hard to borrow because like good choices that build up to a climax, bad choices descend to a disgusting valley. Thompson wasted no time tearing it down and starting over. Instead of going with the quick fix that would buy time today, he's taking a path that he believe will get him to the SB one day. You may not agree with it, you may not understand how this concept "thrifty" applies to the NFL but don’t' throw some stupid one liner at me and pretend like you know what you’re talking about .

Fact is, you don't and you'll probably respond accordingly. Let's here your solutions wise ass. Let's hear what the brilliant Partial would have done because obviously we were just a couple pieces away and should be competitive right now.

Firing Sherman the GM was the best move Harlan ever made, but it wasn't enough to make up for the worst move he ever made, hiring him. 5 years of bad drafts will ruin any team and that is where we were. Sherman did a good job buying time but it was a matter of time before it crumbled. Deal with it. If anything, we should all be planning a scheme to burn Sherman’s house and torture his wife and children because the real villain can be summed up with one picture. Mike Sherman sleeping at the combine.

What's with the hostility and personal slams? I wasn't even referencing your cap discussion. As a matter of fact, I have no idea what I was referencing, but I can read through later and refresh myself. I think I am going to change my name to the brilliant partial

See you guys Sunday, i'm off to work and then out to madtown to chill with the lady folk.

[RashanGary]

I've been very clear that I think getting value from a roster is the #1 reason why one team is better than another and the biggest reason wehy teams win the superbowl.

You could say playmakers with the absense of weak links make the difference as a general big picture rule and I agree with that, but you can't afford to keep playmakers if you don't make excellent value concious decsions so I use VALUE as the one word explaination for why teams are what they are. Value is a very broad term, indirectly it covers everything from playmakers, to good players to weak links. When it's all said and done, do you play at a level higher than you pay? If you can answer yes to taht and you've spent most of your money, you will be a winning team. I think most people know what I'm talking abotu even when I make unbacked one liners adn I've grown lazy with explaining it over and over but I just did 2 more times.


Nobody rudely askes HH for backing of why he believes Roman is a decent player even though he throws out unbacked one liners about Roman being missed. Why is that? Because everyone knows where he's coming from. You could have kept that snide remark to yourself and I could have kept mine.

[FritzDontBlitz]

i just love an optimistic thread.

[vince]

Hey, what are they putting in that KoolAid ya all are drinking ?
You packerrats will stay right where you belong, in the gutter for along time to come !
Keep repeeting to yourselves, next year, next year, next year... Next year never comes boys ! LMFAO !
Silly packers, the NFCN belongs to DA BEARS !


GO BEARS !

Bearman, at least come with something substantive to say, besides your mindless drivel of "The Bears are the greatest!" and "The Packers suck!"

We can figure out that your a Bear fan without your stupid trollivity.

[MJZiggy]

Sorry, Vince. I asked him a question that would have required him to actually know something about his team and he disappeared for some reason...

[vince]

Sorry, Vince. I asked him a question that would have required him to actually know something about his team and he disappeared for some reason...

He'll be back Zig. He always comes back, but I'll be surprised if he's knowledgeable or resourceful enough to answer your question...

Too much work. It's easier and less risky to say, "DA BEARS" and leave it at that.